The father and son were sentenced to a suspended death sentence for killing the person who broke int

The court based on the fact that the person who broke into your home did not necessarily want to kill you, but could be a thief or a mistaken. Personally, I agree with this point of view, unlike the United States, it considers the rights and interests of the intruder more, and also gives the father and son and the people a bell, if it is really the same as the United States, there may be more homicides, and the murderer deliberately kills the person on the grounds of the intruder, after all, it is difficult to prove that the person died. Individuals support the court's claims.

The reason is that the law is a tool of the ruler, and the village officials, although they are small, belong to the ruling class, it's as simple as that. It's just a good example.

The main reason is that the father and son are too defensive, so this kind of judgment was made, but I think. I don't agree with this kind of verdict.

It is the crime of intentional homicide, but the murder attempt is attempted, and the death sentence is suspended according to the circumstances. If it is killed, it is a death sentence.

Improper self-defense. Under the circumstances, it could not be found that the person who broke into the house at night had committed a violent crime, and the murder of the father and son was an act of undue self-defense and intentional homicide.

17 days before the incident, Xu Zhenjun gathered others to break into Zhang's house and hurt people, and on the night of the crime, Xu Zhenjun broke into Zhang's house again, and was obviously at fault for triggering this case, so the intentional homicide of the father and son did not constitute legitimate defense.

He should be stabbed first and then snatched the knife to kill back, and the vulnerable people can't bring equipment to protect themselves, it's really nonsense.

It may be that the father and son have done something unknown and violated the law, even if they break in at night, they can choose to call the police to solve it.

Their actions are not justified because their actions have caused a person**, and this behavior violates the law. Therefore, it is not justified self-defense.

I think their actions were justified in self-defense, and in such an emergency situation, of course, they chose to protect themselves first. They were sentenced to a suspended death sentence, which made many netizens feel unfair.

Illegally breaking into someone's home can exercise the right of unlimited defense abroad, and there is no criminal responsibility for killing someone. Although there are no clear regulations in our country, it is indeed difficult for people to believe that they can peacefully resolve the conflict by breaking into other people's homes and injuring other people's wives and mothers before, that fighting is inevitable, that the death is an accident, and that one should not bear criminal responsibility, and that it is sufficient to bear a certain proportion of civil liability.

No, this kind of behavior that causes significant harm to the unlawful infringer is obviously excessive defense and requires legal responsibility.

What is the rule of law, what is justice, what is that, in ancient times, it was innocent and meritorious to kill people who broke into their homes at night, and in the United States, people who broke into their homes can be robbed and killed.

I think his actions are justified in self-defense, but from a legal point of view, he is in excessive defense, so he will be sentenced to a suspended death sentence.

In fact, in reality, the determination of justifiable defense is a bit complicated, whether the father and son's counter-killing of the night trespasser is considered legitimate defense, according to this case, it is obvious that the father and son's counter-killing of the night trespasser is excessive defense.

I think it's too much defense, after all, if you kill someone, if you don't die but are injured, it should be considered excessive defense.

Father and son killed the person who broke into the house at night, and was sentenced to death with a reprieve, their behavior is not justified defense, their behavior is excessive defense, which has brought a serious impact on society, and their behavior is quite bad, and will be severely punished by the law.

The father and son acted excessively. The intruder did not have a subjective act of injuring others, but the father and son subjectively believed that he would hurt themselves, so they injured the intruder with a knife and caused his death.

The father and son were prepared first, and there was an obvious intent to attack and retaliate, not for defense, and it could not be determined that it was legitimate defense.

Because the doorbreaker had already violated the relevant law, the father and son were only overly defensive and did not commit the charge of intentional homicide.

Because the father and son killed the night trespasser, it was a legitimate defense, but the night burglar did not intend to harm them, but only to rob money, and the father and son deliberately killed the night trespasser, so the court sentenced them to a suspended death.

Because the father and son killed the man who broke into the house at night. Although the person who broke into the house at night was the culprit, he is now dead, so the father and son are not justified in self-defense, and they are in excessive defense, so they will be sentenced to death with a suspended sentence.

Do we all get Shaolin Temple to learn martial arts! Only when you can retract and release freely, can you stop at the point to defend yourself! Hit the bandit before he hurts you!

Breaking into a private house at night is definitely ill-intentioned, so naturally you can't wait for the offender to show murderous intent before defending, and you must strike first, especially if your own side is weak. The court's decision is naturally based on the process and results that have been shown, and if you do not take precautions, the result may be that you are harmed.

The father and son were sentenced to a suspended death sentence for fighting the night trespasser, and the court ruled this because the father and son did not belong to the category of legitimate defense, but deliberately put the other party into their own courtyard after a conflict between the two families, and stabbed the other party to death when the other party was defenseless, so it is the crime of intentional revenge and intentional homicide due to disputes.

Go to the judge's house at night, and see what he will do if someone breaks into his house in the middle of the night. How to let a prisoner leave his house without breaking the law.

Whether the intruder is a threat to his family, for example, if you don't fight back when someone beats him, you keep running out and killing him, this is definitely not okay, it depends on the situation.

Supporting acquittal, they broke into someone's house for the first time, injured someone's daughter-in-law, the police came, the person ran away, and a few days later, the individual led someone to smash the door and turn over the yard for the second time, the father and son had no choice, and it was night again.

Because the court did not consider this act to be justified in self-defense, the defendant father and son prepared sticks in advance and hid in the yard, and when the deceased broke in, he beat him and stabbed him to death with a knife.

If there is any fact, if you don't do it, you will go to the law, and if you have intensified, you should be killed if you enter someone else's house! Friends come with good wine, jackals come with shotguns!

Because the court's judgment is mainly due to the fact that they deliberately broke into the victim's home for the second time, they will be sentenced to a suspended death, and the details of the specific case are still under investigation.

A night trespasser should be judged to be justified in self-defense. No matter how big a major incident happens to you, you should report it to the official to deal with it, and you can't rely on the number of people to trespass on people's houses. If there is no justifiable defense, no family can protect itself and be harmed by bandits.

First of all, some people say that you have prepared sticks in advance, have you prepared them tonight? This matter was the intruder first, and the wooden stick was prepared, but the intruder broke the law first. When you come to smash your door and hit your whole family, some may think that the sticks are not ready.

By extension, in the past, the Japanese came to China to invade and abuse, and now the neighbors come to your house to beat people, I think it is the same nature. Individual rights should be emphasized.

Of course, it is said that a person who came to your house and was suddenly killed by you, passed. It's not wrong for you to report this matter, someone else came to your house and beat your mother and was hospitalized. I also brought people, and the second time I came again.

The door has smashed out of the pit, and he is here to invite you to eat steamed buns. This kind of person is a bully, Water Margin, are you happy to watch the bully fight, are you happy when the bully dies?

Personal rights are the most important, especially if you come to your house in the middle of the night and make your family afraid, uneasy, and illegally infringed.

It should be given a light sentence, after all, breaking into a private house is the first to break in.

YesTen days ago, the Red Star News took the lead in publishing a report titled "'Anti-Killing 6' 4126 Days After the Night Break-in", the main content of which is - in Qingheji Village, Caogang Township, Fengqiu County, Xinxiang City, Henan Province, the family surnamed Zhang was arrested by the son of the village party secretary for reporting corruption, so at night, he was retaliated by the son of the village party secretary, and after the conflict between the two sides in the courtyard, the son of the village party secretary was cut and killed.

After the incident, the family of the victim, who is the son of the village party secretary, quickly reported the caseAfter 2010** until nowIn the continuous appeals, the Xinxiang Intermediate People's Court and the Henan High Court made a unanimous judgment, believing that Zhang's father and son intentionally killed people, yesIt does not constitute legitimate defense, so twoIn the end, he was sentenced to a suspended death sentence。Faced with this situation, Zhang's father and son and their relatives insisted that the act was justified and complained for 11 years.

Until March 2019, Zhang Haofeng's wife Chang Weiyun appealed to the Supreme People's Procuratorate, and the Supreme People's Procuratorate handed over the case to the Henan Provincial People's Procuratorate for review. On November 10, 2020, the Henan Provincial Procuratorate issued a notice stating that "only based on Xu Zhenjun's (the son of the village party secretary) who had obvious mistakes last time, it cannot be directly determined that he must have committed violent and criminal acts this time."

Finally, in the final resolution a few days ago, the court ruled that the main facts found by the trial court were clear, the evidence was credible and sufficient, and there was no obvious impropriety in the handling, and that "this case does not meet the conditions for a protest, and this court has decided not to file a protest." "As a document to the Zhang family.

On July 2, 2009, a villager in Henan Province went to report the village party secretary, only to be retaliated against. At that time, there was a conflict with others directly in the courtyard, which caused the death of the son of the secretary of the regiment. After this incident, many netizens felt that it should be someone else's legitimate defense that accidentally killed the son of the village party secretary by manslaughter.

Because it was the son of the village party secretary who went to settle accounts with others at that time, such a thing happened, but I didn't expect such a result to happen.

When the court heard the case, he held that the situation in which the villagers killed the son of the village party secretary was not justified defense, and the two of them were also sentenced to death. Because of the error in the verdict, the villagers have been complaining, arguing that they were justified in self-defense for manslaughter. At that time, the son of the village party secretary broke into the house without permission and violently clashed with the people in the house, and many villagers basically saw such a thing.

And now he was killed by the father and son, and this matter should be justified defense。Moreover, there are traces of damage to the door of the villagers, which makes people think that the father and son are in a legitimate defense situation. During the trial, he felt that although others violently broke into his home, there was no reason to kill others, and that such acts constituted the crime of homicide and should be sentenced.

In fact, this kind of sentencing result is also reasonable, after all, he relied on the country's legal system to deal with it.

The outcome of any trial must be determined on the basis of legal standards, and if the trial is arbitrary, then it is unreasonable for the laws and regulations established by the state. Although this incident was the fault of the son of the village party secretary, it caused the death of the son of the village party secretary, and the father and son should be responsible.

When the court deals with it, everything must be based on evidence。If there is no evidence that the deceased inflicted substantial harm on the father and son when they entered the father's home, they would not constitute legitimate self-defense and would be manslaughter.

Judicial officers should make judgments based on the objective environment of the scene, human behaviour, stress response and mental state. The judiciary must not deviate from the normal feelings of human beings, and should take into account the natural principles and the legal conditions of the country.

I think the result of this kind of trial is still unreasonable, although it is said that killing people pays for their lives, and they have to pay the price for doing something wrong, but this father and son are obviously protecting themselves, and they can only be said to be defensive negligence, and their fundamental mistake is that the ** person is not pure-minded to end up with such a result.

It's unreasonable, because the two of them were injured by an intruder at home and then implemented legitimate defense, and if they didn't resist, would they wait to be killed?

I don't think it's reasonable, because the father and son killed him by mistake to prevent a suspect from breaking into the house, which is at best an over-defense, but it is really too much to be sentenced to a suspended death.

I think the outcome of the trial is reasonable, because such an incident is very bad, and a suspended death sentence is enough to outrage the people.

I think it's unreasonable because I always feel that he is a victim, and no matter how serious it is, it is manslaughter, and he should not be sentenced to death.

I don't think this is the case because it's a legitimate defense, they're just trying to protect their lives, and I don't think there's any need for such a decision.

After the case was published on the Internet, it aroused great indignation among netizens, and everyone unanimously called for the matter to be judged on the basis of legitimate defense, because it met all the conditions for legitimate defense.

Irrationality. The father and son also accidentally killed him because of legitimate defense, so they should have been overly defended and should not be sentenced to death with a suspended sentence.

I think that the outcome of this trial is relatively reasonable, and it is difficult to make a conclusion because we do not know the specific circumstances.

Irrationality. Because the victim originally came with malice, the father and son killed each other in order to protect their own interests, and being sentenced to death in this way has a bad impact on society.